Is lgbtiq equality a states rights issue? Or is it a national issue

[xchrom]

That should be spear headed the way LBJ did racial equality issues?

[elleng]

1. Both. Has to be.

[Claudia Jones]

5. it cannot be both

There is a conflict.

[elleng]

13. Not necessarily; depends on particular pieces of legislation.

The fight should be made in 'both' places, imo.

[Claudia Jones]

15. oh yes

Agreed.

[Claudia Jones]

2. there should be no controversy

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[The Genealogist]

3. It is an all levels issue

Federal, state and local.

[Claudia Jones]

7. no, it is not

Local governments cannot legally deprive any citizens of equal rights and equal protection on any pretext.

[The Genealogist]

14. They can institute programs like like domestic partner benefits that increase equality

edited to clarify

[Claudia Jones]

17. rights don't have degrees

Rights either are respected, or they are not. There are not degrees.

"Equal" does not mean equal in outcome, it means equal in opportunity and protection.

[Posteritatis]

36. I'm astonished at the number of people who don't seem to get that very simple point. (nt)

[JuniperLea]

50. That's why I'd rather it were referred to as...

Human rights issues... anything else just isn't enough.

[LonePirate]

4. It certainly does not seem to be an important issue for Obama or for many people here at DU.

Yes, we have plenty of critical issues facing this country and LGBT is certainly one them.

[Claudia Jones]

6. equal rights is everyone's cause

Equal rights denied to any of us jeopardize the rights of all of us.

[Ohio Joe]

8. I've seen it as a national issue

The whole, all men are created equal, thing. But the repugs are legislating it away at a state level... I suspect to keep attention diverted and splintered from a national effort.

[demmiblue]

9. National. n/t

[MADem]

10. Do you want the real answer, the right answer, or the politically expedient answer?

The fact of the matter is this--no one should give a shit what people do (or don't do) with their fiddly bits. Marry who you like--or not. You shouldn't get more credit if you are married, or less if you aren't--IMO. Work where you're qualified, without regard to your personal associations. That makes sense to me. Wish it did to everyone else, but we aren't there yet.

However, as every issue that comes to the fore during an election year, this one will probably be shoved off onto the "states' rights" plate for now, because the federal government does not want to be put in the position of dictating to the states what they can or cannot do with regard to this issue (at least not in the near term). There will come a point when most states see the light, and then and only then will the feds get on board.

IMO.

[xchrom]

21. Should the Feds have dictated to the states re: racial equality?

You boil this down to 'fiddly bits' - I can be fired from my job & turned out of my home - depending on where I am - what does THAT have to do w/ my fiddly bits?

[MADem]

24. Go back to the context of the times. That didn't happen in a vacuum.

LBJ didn't just sit down and write a real Civil Rights Act (as opposed to the bullshit one that went down under Eisenhower that meant little to most people with a hue to their epidermis). Shit happened, people weighed in, there was discussion, demonstrations, violence, and great personal sacrifice, to include the murder of activists, over a period of YEARS before that act was signed.

I don't "boil this down to fiddly bits"--I boil it down to "NO ONE SHOULD GIVE A SHIT." Put the emphasis on the right part of the sentence, PLEASE, and don't make me the enemy because I offered up an opinion that will probably be how it goes down over the course of the next few years.

If I ruled the world, I'd make equal rights an international law, but I don't have that power.

I do have powers of observation though, and I have offered an OPINION based on those.

[xchrom]

34. Um - I was there for it. & don't bring up fiddly where they

Aren't appropriate.

Lgbtiq equality doesn't involve our fiddly bits - unless you're a right winger.

All too often this what 'liberal' don't get.

& you're not getting it.

& Obama - if this had been an issue of racial discrimination in NC - damn SURE would have mentioned it in Charlotte.

[TriMera]

11. National. n/t

[SidDithers]

12. Marriage equality should be a federal issue...

Gay rights are civil rights.

Sid

[sudopod]

26. Word nt

[justiceischeap]

47. Thanks but it goes beyond marriage.

We can still get fired from our jobs, evicted from our homes and we're often denied adoption rights.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Obama says it should all be up to the States, and he's wrong.

It is a national issue, I expect my 14th amendment rights.

[mmonk]

18. To me it is national because it is about rights. I wrote something I hope

is in the News & Observer by the end of the week.

[w8liftinglady]

19. A national issue- equality across state lines is critical

...including survivor benefits.

[kelly1mm]

20. 2nd Amendment rights are going national (concealed carry permits)

as there should not be state by state civil rights and the full faith and credit clause. All civil rights should national in scope.

[eShirl]

22. If the issue of civil rights is not a federal issue, I don't know what is.

[Divine Discontent]

23. eShirl has spoken, and therefore I don't need to! +1

http://www.zazzle.com/republicans_2012_keeping_millions_out_of_work_bumper_sticker-128002960205017719

[TriMera]

25. kick. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. The "states' rights" argument does nothing but provide cover for bigots

if the civil rights issue had been left up to the states there'd still be segregation and poll taxes in some places.

[Hosnon]

28. Federally protected civil rights are inherently national.

They can be advocated and promoted on the state level, but ultimately uniformity is required.

[WinkyDink]

29. Rights are for all citizens of the nation.

[backscatter712]

30. Federal issue.

If you ask me, I think states-rights should be going the way of the dodo. They've only been used to justify anti-American bullshit like slavery, Jim Crow, anti-LGBT laws, etc.

[Starry Messenger]

31. National.

[blkmusclmachine]

32. Human Rights issue.

n/t

[treestar]

33. Both as most things would be

Depending on context.

[TriMera]

35. Do you not understand the context of civil rights?

Here's the question: Should my civil rights be voted on by the majority? There was a time that a democrat would not even have to think about the right answer to that question.

[treestar]

38. Could you be more general and vague?

What would be wrong with a state granting those rights? Domestic relations laws are state laws, and Massachusetts I believe is one state that made that leap forward. Hawaii also.

If you want to talk about the states that refuse to, that's another thing.

[Claudia Jones]

40. rights cannot be "granted"

You are talking about permissions being granted, and that is the opposite of rights being acknowledged.

Thinking of GLBT equality as a permission granted, a favor bestowed, is a denial of rights not an affirmation of them.

[treestar]

46. They still must be acknowledged by a society

And a US state recognizing them is not small potatoes.

[Claudia Jones]

51. smaller potatoes then

Not sure where you are going with this or why you persist in arguing. No doubt it is contingent upon which position the White House happens to be taking, and not any serious thought on the issue.

Whether or not any particular state decides to acknowledge rights, the question was this: is it better determined at the federal or at the state level? In other words, which potatoes are bigger and which are smaller?

[MrSlayer]

37. Civil rights and human rights should never be left up to the electorate to decide.

Equal rights for all should mean equal rights for all.

[JuniperLea]

52. Damn right!

These are human rights issues, nothing less. We need to lose the words that divide us, IMHO. We are all humans, period.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Personal then local then national

Hate is wrong, Discrimination is wrong. People should aspire to be the best that they can be.

If the person cannot tell right from wrong hopefully those immediately around them, their family, friends and co-workers can help them see the light.

Even then it is the job of government to protect our rights.

[Claudia Jones]

41. if I may say so...

That is incorrect.

The issue here is whether or not people have power over others, power to do them harm. That is external, it exists in objective reality and can be addressed and remedied.

First comes the oppression, then comes the bigotry. Making it a matter of people's personal individual feelings makes it unsolvable. When the conditions change people's attitudes will change. Changing people's attitudes will not necessarily change the conditions. An example of this is racism. First came slavery, then came the attitudes we call "racism" - a set of rationalizations and justifications for slavery. The attitudes we call racism persist so long as the inequality exists, as an effect of those conditions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. I totally get where you're coming from and I've said as much myself

so no disagreement here.

But I'm sure you'll also agree that 300 million people saying, "it's the right thing to do" is better than those same people saying, "Well, I suppose I have to obey the law."

Strictly speaking from my dream world of course. I hope someday it's more than just a dream.

[Claudia Jones]

45. yes, maybe

But "it is the right thing to do" comes from an accurate perception of objective reality, not from a change in attitude.

We saw that in that video of the episode where bystanders spontaneously and quickly jumped into action and working together did what was needed - they lifted a burning car off of an injured biker. It was their clear perception of the situation that led to action, not weeks of consciousness-raising sessions about helping our fellow man as the right thing to do.

Our task is not one of "selling" anything - although people will project that on to us and assume that we are - not to preach at people and convert them to new beliefs or attitudes, not to scold or blame or boss them around, but rather to present objective reality about the conditions so that more people can see through the lying and deception and accurately perceive reality. Motivation, action and cooperation will automatically follow. That is because it is not human nature to be selfish, greedy and brutal, despite what those defending the powerful and the status quo would have us believe. Rather, if anything could be called "human nature" it is self-sacrifice, altruism and cooperation.

[dembotoz]

43. i would hope national because with states you will always-yes always

have areas that would deny rights to somebody.

i don't think i could count on wisconsin to do the right thing--and we have (had) a reputation for being progressive.

with the power of the tea party these days i do not think the states can be trusted to do anything--actually i would be nervous about federal too.

[mitchtv]

44. national

My rights are inherent, and not subject to the electorate's approval

[rug]

48. Human rights are never local issues.

[JuniperLea]

49. I see it as a human rights issue...

I'd like to see it get back to square one and be talked about as such.

The fewer divisions we use to separate us all, the better for all concerned. These are human rights issues. Period.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Civil rights shouldn't be up for a vote, or subject to majority whim

so, no, a National issue. A human, everyone issue.